Tea for Too Much?

Tea for Who

Larken Rose and the other Re-Tea Party speakers embody the true spirit of Independence Day, a celebration of rebellion against tyrannical government. This is sharply contrasted by the typical flag-waving and state worship presented at other tea parties.

The speakers invited to the Re-Tea Party all share a goal of individual liberty. There is no doubt that Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, Ben Franklin, Sam Adams and the other signers of the Declaration of Independence were considered too radical by many of their time. This is clearly a time that we need a return to this type of radicalism and courageous thinking.

This has nothing to with Obama vs. Bush. It has everything to do with statism vs. freedom, prosperity vs. plunder and life vs. death.

JIM BABB
via philadelphiaweekly.com

It’s in your own best interest, as a journalist, as an individual, as a free person with dreams, to educate yourself on the progressive movement and the deliberate encroachment on liberty that has resulted and continues to result from it. Those who trade freedom for security (government healthcare, bailouts) are doomed to lose both.

MATT GRODSKY
via philadelphiaweekly.com

As usual, Philadelphia Weekly got the story wrong. But at least you covered the Independence Hall Tea Party. That’s more than I can say for the Inquirer and its Daily News sister paper.

However, that kind of news blackout demonstrates the need for the tea parties, as an important voice of America that’s not being heard. The mainstream media, also known as the state-run media and the drive-by media, is in the tank for Obama and reports like a propaganda arm for the Obama administration.

The tea party had no talk of revolution—contrary to your claim. It was a protest of the insane, immoral, unsustainable spending splurge of the Obama administration. That is a protest now being echoed across party lines.

HERB DENENBERG
via philadelphiaweekly.com

Licence to Wed

I think that people who don’t support same sex marriage are missing an important detail. The issue is actually a religious topic and not a political one. Our forefathers made sure that there was a separation between church and state. A person getting married has to get a marriage license from the state, not the church. Denying people from getting married just because of religious views violates that separation.

It seems that people will use anything in order to get their way. A few years ago, people were rallying for separation of church and state when they found out there was a Bible in front of a court house. I bet they’re the same hypocrites that are rallying against gay marriage. I personally believe that only men and women should marry one another, but it’s a personal belief.

COMMENTS

ADD COMMENT

Related Content

If some skinny white kid can dress up like a pimp and bring down ACORN, at the very least I can pretend to be all Fox-News-in-the-head for a few hours to crash a Tea Party and find out what these people are so darn mad about.